Three years ago, lawyer Jordan van den Berg was an obscure TikTok creator who made videos that mocked real estate agents.

But today the 28-year-old is one of the most high-profile activists in Australia.

Posting under the moniker Purple Pingers, Mr van den Berg has been taking on the nation’s housing crisis by highlighting shocking renting conditions, poor behaviour from landlords, and what he calls government failures.

It is his vigilante-style approach - which includes helping people find vacant homes to squat in, and exposing bad rentals in a public database - that has won over a legion of fans.

Some have dubbed him the Robin Hood of renters.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.

      • @NotBillMurray
        link
        English
        57 months ago

        Holy shit my guy. “Someone vaguely disagreed with me and used the same verbiage I used on someone else, time to block them”. Touch grass, please, for your sake as much as ours.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          47 months ago

          Ah, but you see, it’s not hypocritical because rules are just weapons to use against your opponents, and we’re suckers for not using it against them first. /s

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            47 months ago

            “I’m not here to engage in discussion, I’m just here to make people listen to me and I only want to hear people who agree with me.”

            Okay then.

      • @guacupado
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Removed by mod

        • @jordanlundM
          link
          English
          17 months ago

          It was phrased as a conditional, they weren’t DIRECTLY saying the other person was awful, they were saying “people who do x are awful.” It leaves it open to the idea that the original commenter does not do x and is therefore not awful.

          In YOUR case, yeah, calling someone awful breaks the civility rule.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

            Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

            Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.

            • @jordanlundM
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Clearly stated in rule 5:

              Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!